629 réponses à ce sujet

[Lebanese Dude]

Is someone going to make a post about how the DAI cover misled them because the mark is on the wrong hand?

[pawswithclaws]

Yeah, don't bold the other part, which is way more important: it's not a promise of any kind.

I didn't think it was the right season for cherry-picking, but seems I was incorrect!

[Lebanese Dude]

right season for cherry-picking

I could go for some cherries right now...

[pawswithclaws]

I could go for some cherries right now...

We're talking about the fruit, right?

[Skuld]

So false advertising is a perfectly good thing not a disgusting business practice that should be punished by law to protect consumers?

 

The things I learn everyday...

[X Equestris]

So false advertising is a perfectly good thing not a disgusting business practice that should be punished by law to protect consumers?
 
The things I learn everyday...

It's not false advertising.

[Lebanese Dude]

We're talking about the fruit, right?

Duh

[Skuld]

It's not false advertising.

 

For the lack of better source, here, have a wiki

 

False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising, and misrepresentation of the product at hand, which may negatively affect many stakeholders, especially consumers. As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid

[Lebanese Dude]

It's not false advertising.

 

Just don't bother. Some people live to be offended.

 

The realities of software are lost on them. They think that buying a video game is like buying a car.

 

Makes me laugh really.

[pawswithclaws]

Duh

Well, you never know!

[Skuld]

Just don't bother. Some people live to be offended.

 

The realities of software are lost on them. They think that buying a video game is like buying a car.

 

Makes me laugh really.

Please explain the difference between the two.

[SofaJockey]

(disgusted noise)

 

I can't follow this thread any more, it's doing my head it.

 

By the logic of 'the brainless might seize on a feature that would shape their wish to buy the game, that might be cut'

It is no longer possibly to give any insight into game development until probably only weeks before launch.

 

This makes no more sense than:

 

Peanuts: Warning, may contain nuts (a bit like this thread).

 

Truly I wish this forum had a dislike button...

[Lebanese Dude]

Please explain the difference between the two.

 

A car is a physical product. A video game is a piece of software.

 

A car is designed before it's manufactured and the features of the design are rarely changed post-design phase.

A video game has an overall planned design and then is manufactured "on-the-go" with features being added as unforeseen issues and complications arise.

 

A car is a relatively complete entity that serves a tangible purpose. You buy a car to drive it. The fancy details are there to sell to a different audience. Adding mahogany or silver dashboard is a matter of taste. A lot of testing goes into safety procedures obviously, but those account for the a relatively defined entity: the human body.

 

A video game is a modular entity that serves a purpose of "fun". "Fun" is incredibly relative, and some features that were previously considered "fun" on conception may turn out to be "tedious" or "boring" when actually implemented. Those may have to be cut.

 

A car company can jack up the price of the product as more fancy features are added. There are limits to stay competitive but you can nudge the price a hefty amount.

 

A video game can't do that because prices are very competitive and video games are pretty risky business. You take 3 years to make a 60$ game. So video games need to start showing features off before release to create "hype" to sell the product to make a profit.

 

Need I say more?

[pawswithclaws]

...

 

Need I say more?

Ooooh, please do the difference between buying a video game and buying a loaf of bread next!!!

 

I'm trying to figure out why this thread is under surveillance.

I guess we're being more douchebaggy than usual?

[Skuld]

A car is a physical product. A video game is a piece of software.

How is that relevant?

 

A car is designed before it's manufactured and the features of the design are rarely changed post-design phase.

I agree about software life cycle. I have no idea about car design, but to clarify: I'm not saying car is the same as a app. Simply I am not sure how it applies to the marketing part.

 

A video game has an overall planned design and then is manufactured "on-the-go" with features being added as unforeseen issues and complications arise.

Agile developement is a buzzword, but the same rule applies - you generally add features, not remove them after the initial design is ready. Customers are generally pissed if there was a feature they liked in the prototype and it vanished from production.

 

A car is a relatively complete entity that serves a tangible purpose. You buy a car to drive it. The fancy details are there to sell to a different audience. Adding mahogany or silver dashboard is a matter of taste.

I don't see the difference. Entertainment is a pretty tangible purpose.

 

A video game is a modular entity that serves a purpose of "fun". "Fun" is incredibly relative, and some features that were previously considered "fun" on conception may turn out to be "tedious" or "boring" when actually implemented. Those may have to be cut.

I don't question that something may become "not fun" and I'm not really sure what's the argument here. I question showing a prototype to a massive amount of people who are not a part of development team, but potential customers, and cutting it without any word before the release, leaving those potential customers to learn about it themselves, by using the product they've paid for.

 

A car company can jack up the price of the product as more fancy features are added.

Something like DLCs?

 

A video game can't do that because prices are competitive and video games are pretty risk business. You take 3 years to make a 60$ game. 

So video games need to start advertising before release to create "hype" to sell the product.

Cars were pretty risky business back in 19th century.

 

Need I say more?

You don't need to, I'm certain we won't come to any compromise in this argument.

[pawswithclaws]

Agile development has been around for quite a while, I doubt you can call it a "buzzword". And yeah, even in agile development you may end up cutting features that doesn't work as intended for one reason or another. The keyword is "agile" - adapting to the situation as it changes.

[Lebanese Dude]

You don't need to, I'm certain we won't come to any compromise in this argument.

 

Of course not.

 

You're essentially implying that people buy their cars after reading about them 5 months before they were released and without seeing them in person first. 

 

Had you actually looked at the advertisements made before release, you'd learn what had changed pretty quickly. 

Had you done your research and saw the games in action before they were released to the public thanks to reviewers, you'd know what was changed pretty easily.

Instead you apparently bought the game sight unseen after reading or seeing the pre-alpha build and then complained that the game didn't turn out how you expected.

[pdusen]

Agile developement is a buzzword

 

Stop right there.

 

First, agile development is NOT a buzzword. It has a very specific, industry-wide meaning: After every development sprint, you re-evaluate the current state of the product, decide what your next priorities should be, and decide what should change. This is done because the alternative is planning out everything up-front, before you have any clue what will work and what won't, which just results in a giant boondoggle that nobody ends up wanting.

 

Second, 

 

 

but the same rule applies - you generally add features, not remove them after the initial design is ready. Customers are generally pissed if there was a feature they liked in the prototype and it vanished from production..

 

 

Complete garbage. In agile development, you remove things FREQUENTLY. You do your first iteration on a feature, and then after that you evaluate: Is this working as intended? Would doing something else be better? Are there other things more important than continuing to iterate on this?

 

Because why on earth would you want to keep and maintain something that ended up not having the effect you intended?

 

When I was in a Project Management course for my software engineering degree, I was taught about a survey that found that agile teams often went to release with over 30% of the features they planned for unimplemented. This is completely normal.

 

In my industry, we include the clients in the evaluation process after each sprint, because we develop custom software to serve their needs. You'd be shocked how often that the client is the one who decides that last 30% is unnecessary.

[Skuld]

Agile development has been around for quite a while, I doubt you can call it a "buzzword". And yeah, even in agile development you may end up cutting features that doesn't work as intended for one reason or another. The keyword is "agile" - adapting to the situation as it changes.

Yes, change the ORM because there's something wonky in the way it handles noninteger keys a month before go-live, please. Agile has been around for many years, but it was called simply "common sense".

 

Let's keep this on tracks, shall we?

[pawswithclaws]

Yes, change the ORM because there's something wonky in the way it handles noninteger keys a month before go-live, please. Agile has been around for many years, but it was called simply "common sense".

 

Let's keep this on tracks, shall we?

I would, but you keep trying to derail it for some reason. You're the one who brought up agile development, and then made some erroneous statements that was supposed to support your cause.

[Wulfram]

You really can't tell that a feature has been cut from the stuff Bioware put out after the pre-alpha. They're pretty careful that way.

[Farangbaa]

You really can't tell that a feature has been cut from the stuff Bioware put out after the pre-alpha. They're pretty careful that way.

Just like you can't know it will be in it.

Betting on that it will is just setting yourself up for disappointed, because you have zero evidence that it will.

It being shown in pre-alpha, as history has proven time and time again, does not mean it's going to be in the game. If you expect that, it's entirely your own fault.

[Elhanan]

It was not a car, cookie, or other off-limits baked good I sorely crave currently; twas a game. And the game design changes along the way. To show that work is progressing, demos are shown of what is possible; not promised. And I wager a guess that most of those in attendance at the actual demo understand this concept; others with rather huge chips on their shoulders might think differently, as their view could be obstructed.

Shortly before release, official media flooded the marketplace of what to expect. Now if one did not care enough to look into any of this, and is basing their purchase on some vid taken of a demo made many months previously, another old adage tends to leap to my fading memory: "Let the buyer beware".

[Skuld]

Of course not.

 

You're essentially implying that people buy their cars after reading about them 5 months before they were released and without seeing them in person first. 

 

Had you actually looked at the advertisements made before release, you'd learn what had changed pretty quickly. 

Had you done your research and saw the games in action before they were released to the public thanks to reviewers, you'd know what was changed pretty easily.

Instead you apparently bought the game sight unseen after reading or seeing the pre-alpha build and then complained that the game didn't turn out how you expected.

I admit, I have no idea where I implied that. I don't know what people do to buy cars either. I'd assume test drive is in order? Word of mouth opinions? Research? Ok then, let's, for the sake of the argument, say games and cars are not the same.

There is no such thing as reliable info on game before release, no playable demo and most of the materials you watched may or may not be true.

Promotional materials such as pre-alpha footage are one of the very limited ways to lure customers. You cannot give the specifics, fearing of the competition, but you can show something really cool that you know is complex and is not even remotely close to being finished, I think that is not very fair.

 

Asumptions won't let you win the internet.